Elected officials in wheelchairs with oxygen tanks and guns. Legislators taking cues from unidentified voices on disposable phones, known as burners. Politicians running for office even though they may be legally prohibited from doing so.

This election season is not only hotly contested across the ballot, but it's also growing rather bizarre in the races where few of us barely pay attention.

At the heart of the controversy are constables and justices of the peace, who, as of six years ago, were allowed to continue running for re-election past the age of 70 as long as they were elected on or before Aug. 15, 2006. But that grandfather clause was removed this session through legislation passed by state Sen. Elbert Guillory, R-Opelousas.

In one of the oddest twists to emerge from the session, Guillory told me the Louisiana Justices of the Peace and Constables Association requested the bill to address an issue that's barely believable. "They said they had a problem with people in wheelchairs and oxygen tanks and people with advanced ages who were going around the countryside, and who were not post-certified, with firearms and they felt it was a danger," he said, echoing concerns some association sources contend are legitimate.

Yet more than a half dozen rank-and-file members I interviewed still cried foul, claiming Guillory slipped the bill, which had only one nay vote, through the process with stealth. Moreover, George Steimel, a longtime lobbyist who reps the association, outright called Guillory a liar. "The senator is being dishonest when he suggested to the news media that the association requested that he file the legislation," Steimel said.

Guillory, who considered running in the 5th Congressional District before focusing more intently on the 2015 race for lieutenant governor, offered up a troubling response. He claimed to not know the identity of the individual who dialed his office and requested the bill, adding that he traced the number to a disposable cell phone.

But he insisted it was at least a person representing themselves as a spokesperson for the association, someone who had institutional knowledge. "This was an inside job. This was not an outside job," Guillory said in a follow-up interview.

"And throughout all of the legislative proceedings, no one from the association said, 'Stop! Halt! Wait! We don't want this.' Their representatives only said, 'We will not oppose this legislation.' If all of those facts wouldn't lead a reasonable person to believe that the association really wanted this, then..." Guillory added, letting the thought dangle.

While there are surely many special interests taking note of how easy it can be to get Guillory to file legislation without fingerprints, the matter of why it was filed and for whom seems destined to remain a mystery.

That allows elected justices and constables to speculate: some wonder if the association leadership was behind it, hoping to thin out the ranks before retreating; others believe Guillory was carrying the water for a political ally; and a few suggested the attorney general's office, which has an oversight role, is involved. Two members even said the association originally carved out an opposition stance before its leadership decided to remain neutral.

All parties have flatly denied any such maneuvers, and the attorney general's office was expected to hold a meeting with association members this week.

Regardless, there are now at least 189 justices and constables who are not eligible to run for re-election. In Acadiana, rumors are swirling that many will qualify anyway in hopes of a court challenge. Meanwhile, Guillory said a group of constables have hired an attorney to see if something can be done before qualifying begins on Aug. 20.

There's one other wrinkle to take into account. A constitutional amendment on the fall ballot will give voters the opportunity to permit elected judges to serve past 70, their current retirement age. Justices of the peace, some of which have limited judicial powers, argue the amendment should apply to them too.

Additionally, some judges over the age threshold are said to be considering qualifying as well. They see a potential loophole: The constitutional amendment, if approved, would take effect before January, which is when they would be sworn in.

After learning all of this, I'm certain you'll agree that these elected officials aren't the only ones feeling confused -- not to mention disappointed in how this all unfolded right before qualifying.

Jeremy Alford is the publisher of LaPolitics Weekly and LaPolitics.com. He can be reached at JJA@LaPolitics.com.